Why atheism entails the possibility of God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is atheism actually valid? It makes wierd assumptions like they actually understand the topic god.

No... it's theism that does that. We can't believe what we can't conceive, so people who don't have any understanding of what the word "god" means are atheists.

 

[David T]

No... it's theism that does that. We can't believe what we can't conceive, so people who don't have any understanding of what the word "god" means are atheists.

Then it should be called I have no clueism what the hell they are talking about or to whom. That I would understand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then it should be called I have no clueism what the hell they are talking about or to whom. That I would understand.

Atheism is just the absence of theism. An atheist is just anyone who's not a theist. Atheists can run the gamut from "what's a god?" to "no gods exist at all" and everything in between.

 

[David T]

Atheism is just the absence of theism. An atheist is just anyone who's not a theist. Atheists can run the gamut from "what's a god?" to "no gods exist at all" and everything in between.

Itsbintellectual b.s. in context to intellectual bs. Which he is true?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Itsbintellectual b.s. in context to intellectual bs. Which he is true?

I'd rather you didn't troll at all, but if you're going to do it, at least troll coherently.

 

[David T]

I'd rather you didn't troll at all, but if you're going to do it, at least troll coherently.

Theism is by it's own stAtements is the idealization of the intellect. It by it's nature loves itself and places itself on high. I understand human intellect as the youngest on the evolutionary tree that is 14 billion years old. As such it's an infant leaf on that tree. The tree is objective the intellect is subjective to it in totality. The intellect loves itself in theism and atheism. Which self love is correct? I am all about evolution and nature not intellectual narratives we create about nature. That's city folk nonsense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theism is by it's own stAtements is the idealization of the intellect. It by it's nature loves itself and places itself on high. I understand human intellect as the youngest on the evolutionary tree that is 14 billion years old. As such it's an infant leaf on that tree. The tree is objective the intellect is subjective to it in totality. The intellect loves itself in theism and atheism. Which self love is correct? I am all about evolution and nature not intellectual narratives we create about nature. That's city folk nonsense.

I'll take this as a response of "no" to my suggestion of being coherent.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism is an umbrella term, same as theism. Unless you think all theistic creation stories are the same or something?

I'd say atheism is a little more narrow in its range of beliefs, it's a generalization though..

 

[David T]

I'll take this as a response of "no" to my suggestion of being coherent.

Well you believe in non dimensional point like particles as being literally real I say balogny. That is For simple lack of a better analogy right now. Please don't be literal here if thats possible for you. theists agree with you they just theorize how they function differently than you. La la land is la la land arguing with la la land. So we afree to disagree i am most certainly not a theist you are a type of theist a Baptist without Jesus big deal.

 

[siti]

@ArtieE - etymologically, 'monotheism' and 'theism' are more or less synonymous - the belief in more than one god is called 'polytheism'. But it really doesn't matter that much anyway because you are correct to point out that 'atheism' is the position of being without belief in any of these gods - but I don't really see the point of arguing about how many gods there might not be!

Of course looking for a natural cause of earthquakes IS an idea - one that was had by (among others) Thales, Aristotle, and a bit more recently, Alfred Wegener and Arthur Holmes - for example. We might take for granted that there IS a natural cause but that is because somebody had that idea - even if it was a very long time ago. Likewise with atheism - it is the idea that everything can (potentially) be explained without recourse to the notion of a deity/deities. If there is 'no idea' connoted by it what is the point of defining one's worldview with the term? You might just as well define yourself as someone who does not knit or someone who does not play croquet.

I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - hence my argument that the very extraordinary radical emergence (aka miracle) of 'experience' (or consciousness etc.) from a more fundamental reality that is entirely non-experiential requires extraordinary evidence that materialism fails to provide.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd say atheism is a little more narrow in its range of beliefs, it's a generalization though..

I'd say atheists are a little more narrow in their range of beliefs.

 

[Milton Platt]

Here's an essay I wrote a few years ago. Sorry its a bit long - but feel free to tear my argument to shreds...

The following partial definitions of atheism and materialism are taken from the American Atheists web pages:

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose…​

I think the partial definition of materialism quoted is a denial of the very means by which the author has constructed the definition. That, I think, is the fundamental problem of atheistic materialism – it fails to account for the inherent purposiveness and creativeness that its proponents quite deliberately employ in order to formulate and express the principles of their own “mental attitude”.

We know, from even casual observation, that, “the whole” is often, if not always, “greater than the sum of its parts” – that is holistic emergence. It happens, so obviously as to be almost unremarkable, at every level of reality we have yet observed. A trio of lonely quarks choreograph their dance to form the original ménage-a-trois, in the process creating a new, emergent level of reality with properties that are unpredictable from the observation of quarks in isolation (if that were even possible). The three become one – a proton, and they are quickly joined by a fourth quark, an electron, who never quite makes it into the inner love triangle but is content to waltz around the periphery giving rise to another novel emergence – a hydrogen atom.

Two of these join together with another more complex atom, oxygen, to form a water molecule and billions of these cooperate to give rise to yet another emergent property not implicit in the underlying level – liquidity. Is the propensity for water (and other molecules) to form liquids under certain conditions an immanent property of the underlying, more fundamental reality, or is it an emergent property that arises from the complexity of the ratios and relationships between the component “particles”?

We could trace the course of emergence onward and upward through the various levels of reality from atoms and molecules, via cells and organs, to organisms, communities and biospheres. At each higher level, higher level functions and properties emerge that correspond approximately to information (data), communication, signal-processing and eventually consciousness and mind. And we must then ask the same question – is the propensity for complex organisms to develop consciousness and mind an inherent, immanent property of the underlying levels of reality, or does it emerge from the complexity of the system?

But at this level, the question takes on a more significant import. If we say consciousness and mind are inherent and implicit in the sub-structure of the universe that gave rise to them, we are subscribing to a kind of panpsychism. If we say it is emergent from the complexity of the system, then why stop there? Why insist that the universe that gave birth to human intelligence is, in its entirety, nothing more than the simple sum of the nuts and bolts it is made of when there is abundant evidence to prove that almost everything that it is made of is so much more than the sum of the component parts?

We could argue forever about terminology – about whether or not it is appropriate to use the word “God” to describe either the fundamentally panpsychical reality or the “more than the sum of its parts” emergent holistic and obviously creative nature of the whole universe – but in a universe that has apparently, to take a strictly atheist/materialist viewpoint, randomly given rise to the emergence of life and mind, who could realistically deny the possibility that God may emerge (if s/he hasn't already)?

You are making up your own personal definition of atheism, so I don't see how the rest of your essay matters to others.

 

[Milton Platt]

You'd have to quote me and re-read my post.

Okay. I'm bored. My short answer: No, atheist doesn't entail the possibility of god. Atheism says belief god does not exist. Any other definition is not atheism.

Atheism isn't a mental attitude. It's strict disbelief in the existence of god. Someone's lifestyle, cultural outlook, worldview, and religion has nothing to do with it.

No, you're adding unessential features. The one, essential feature of any form of atheism is lack of belief in God/Gods.

True, there are atheists who believe that god definitely does not exist, and there are atheists with various scientific or ethical convictions, but these are not essential features. All it takes is lack of belief. All the rest is extraneous.​

There are no extras. It's just simple lack of belief in god. Whatever else people want to put into it depends on their culture, upbringing, and all of that.

Atheism says disbelief in god
Materialism says things exist without the spiritual

How does one relate to the other?​

They don't. That's my point.

You should let atheists define atheism, or you need to then allow atheists to define religion.

Atnheism is not necessarily

Here's an essay I wrote a few years ago. Sorry its a bit long - but feel free to tear my argument to shreds...

The following partial definitions of atheism and materialism are taken from the American Atheists web pages:

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose…​

I think the partial definition of materialism quoted is a denial of the very means by which the author has constructed the definition. That, I think, is the fundamental problem of atheistic materialism – it fails to account for the inherent purposiveness and creativeness that its proponents quite deliberately employ in order to formulate and express the principles of their own “mental attitude”.

We know, from even casual observation, that, “the whole” is often, if not always, “greater than the sum of its parts” – that is holistic emergence. It happens, so obviously as to be almost unremarkable, at every level of reality we have yet observed. A trio of lonely quarks choreograph their dance to form the original ménage-a-trois, in the process creating a new, emergent level of reality with properties that are unpredictable from the observation of quarks in isolation (if that were even possible). The three become one – a proton, and they are quickly joined by a fourth quark, an electron, who never quite makes it into the inner love triangle but is content to waltz around the periphery giving rise to another novel emergence – a hydrogen atom.

Two of these join together with another more complex atom, oxygen, to form a water molecule and billions of these cooperate to give rise to yet another emergent property not implicit in the underlying level – liquidity. Is the propensity for water (and other molecules) to form liquids under certain conditions an immanent property of the underlying, more fundamental reality, or is it an emergent property that arises from the complexity of the ratios and relationships between the component “particles”?

We could trace the course of emergence onward and upward through the various levels of reality from atoms and molecules, via cells and organs, to organisms, communities and biospheres. At each higher level, higher level functions and properties emerge that correspond approximately to information (data), communication, signal-processing and eventually consciousness and mind. And we must then ask the same question – is the propensity for complex organisms to develop consciousness and mind an inherent, immanent property of the underlying levels of reality, or does it emerge from the complexity of the system?

But at this level, the question takes on a more significant import. If we say consciousness and mind are inherent and implicit in the sub-structure of the universe that gave rise to them, we are subscribing to a kind of panpsychism. If we say it is emergent from the complexity of the system, then why stop there? Why insist that the universe that gave birth to human intelligence is, in its entirety, nothing more than the simple sum of the nuts and bolts it is made of when there is abundant evidence to prove that almost everything that it is made of is so much more than the sum of the component parts?

We could argue forever about terminology – about whether or not it is appropriate to use the word “God” to describe either the fundamentally panpsychical reality or the “more than the sum of its parts” emergent holistic and obviously creative nature of the whole universe – but in a universe that has apparently, to take a strictly atheist/materialist viewpoint, randomly given rise to the emergence of life and mind, who could realistically deny the possibility that God may emerge (if s/he hasn't already)?

You should allow atheists to define atheism, or else, be satisfied with allowing atheists to define your religion for you.

Atheism is that lack of a belief in a god. Not the belief that there are no gods, which is a positive claim. Atheists have examined the god claims and found them wanting.

 

[siti]

You are making up your own personal definition of atheism, so I don't see how the rest of your essay matters to others.

I didn't make it up - its a quote from an atheist web site. But that's not really the relevant part. Anyway, I'm tired of the 'definition' argument - its just fatuous, quite frankly and if that's as far as an avowed "atheist" is prepared to read then I'm afraid the 'definition' of that person's 'atheism' is an abandonment of freethinking. That might not matter to you - but it really puts you in the same camp as the fundamentalist Christians who base their entire "belief" system on a book they've never actually read. The essay was not intended to refute atheism in any case (maybe I chose the wrong title) but to get freethinkers to think freely about the problem I have highlighted - the unexplained phenomenon of experience - and, yes, to open up a discussion about the possibility of a naturalistic way of thinking about 'deity'. You are at perfect liberty to dismiss this as irrelevant - but I am left wondering which bit you are rejecting - the idea of a naturally emergent deity or the idea of thinking - perhaps its just too hard!

 

[Milton Platt]

I didn't make it up - its a quote from an atheist web site. But that's not really the relevant part. Anyway, I'm tired of the 'definition' argument - its just fatuous, quite frankly and if that's as far as an avowed "atheist" is prepared to read then I'm afraid the 'definition' of that person's 'atheism' is an abandonment of freethinking. That might not matter to you - but it really puts you in the same camp as the fundamentalist Christians who base their entire "belief" system on a book they've never actually read. The essay was not intended to refute atheism in any case (maybe I chose the wrong title) but to get freethinkers to think freely about the problem I have highlighted - the unexplained phenomenon of experience - and, yes, to open up a discussion about the possibility of a naturalistic way of thinking about 'deity'. You are at perfect liberty to dismiss this as irrelevant - but I am left wondering which bit you are rejecting - the idea of a naturally emergent deity or the idea of thinking - perhaps its just too hard!

No, it just isn't the definition of my atheism, or the atheism of many, many others. Which atheist web site did you get it from? Atheism isn't a monolith.

 

[siti]

You should allow atheists to define atheism, or else, be satisfied with allowing atheists to define your religion for you.

Jeez - you don't give up do you? OK - go on - define my religion for me...but that is exactly the point of about half of the posts in this thread so far...defining 'theism' as the opposite of 'atheism' - it is not that and never was and if you don't know that, you don't even know what the most basic definition of atheism is.

 

[siti]

Which atheist web site did you get it from?

Its in the essay for crying out loud - you know - they have these things called links...its written in blue and underlined...

 

[McBell]

You are making up your own personal definition of atheism, so I don't see how the rest of your essay matters to others.

Actually, he took that definition from the American Atheists website....

 

[McBell]

you don't even know what the most basic definition of atheism is.

the most basic definition of atheism is lack of a deity belief.
Which is a far far cry from the definition you present in the OP

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am an atheist. Not everyone is a theist on these RF boards.

You should let atheists define atheism, or you need to then allow atheists to define religion.

With that said...

Atheism is that lack of a belief in a god. Not the belief that there are no gods, which is a positive claim. Atheists have examined the god claims and found them wanting.

Atheism is "lack of belief in the existence of god(s)" whatever else you want to add "examining god claims and found them wanting" and all of that depends on the person.

I stick with the strict definition for myself; because, I don't have the experiences of belief to not belief or putting down former religions or anything like that. I'm simple. I lack belief in the existence of god(s).

Unless you're saying an atheist can be an agnostic and lack the belief in god but not in his existence?

Then the atheist would assume that god exist in some fashion because if you don't lack belief in the existence of god (per dictionary definition), what exactly are you lacking belief in? A concept of a god? The idea of a god?

Atheism isn't rejecting a theist claim. It's just saying "you believe this. I believe the opposite." (aka A-) nothing fancy and complicated.